This scene should be part of a population management program for golden retrievers. Source for image.
Let’s clear the air a bit.
When a dog breed is put into a closed registry system, it has been decided to create a population of animals that has a population genetics structure that resembles that of an endangered species. There is plenty of evidence that many very popular breeds have terrible genetic structures. In a 2008 paper in the journal Genetics, Calboli et al. performed an analysis of ten dog breeds in the UK, using Kennel Club pedigrees to determine effective population size. Effective population size tells you how big the population would be if a random number of individuals were put together that would have the same amount of genetic diversity as the population in question. The general rule for conservation genetics is that anything under 100 individuals is of critical concern.
The results went as follows:
Akita – 45 (effective population).
Boxer – 45
Bulldog – 48
Chow Chow – 50
Rough Collie – 33
Golden Retriever – 67
Greyhound – 17
German Shepherd – 76
Labrador – 114
English Springer Spaniel – 72
Shocking, eh?
Every one of these breeds is a closed registry breed.
All but one have very real problems with genetic diversity. Only the Labrador retriever is out of the crisis zone– and just barely.
If you read the paper, the golden retriever, which doesn’t look as bad, has the worst problems with popular sire effects in its population. Only 5% of the male dogs in the UK population are sires, and for a popular breed, this is a recipe for disaster.
This is because even though these dog breeds have a genetic structure resembling that of an endangered species, they are not bred the way conservationists would breed endangered species.
With endangered species, the goal is to conserve as much genetic diversity as possible. The Chinese spend countless hours working to maintain what genetic diversity can be spared in giant pandas. Giant pandas, which are actually a primitive bear with no living close relatives left, have no populations for which there can be outcrosses.
You can’t say that about golden retrievers, which would be greatly served with occasional outcrosses to their somewhat more genetically diverse smooth-coated cousins. The differences between Labrador and golden retrievers aren’t that extreme. Both are derived from the same root stock. Both breeds share ancestors in documented pedigrees, and there was a famous cross between a yellow Labrador (Haylers Defender) to the Haulstone line of golden retrievers in the 1920’s.
Not ancient history at all!
If we had a dog culture that was based upon reason and science, this would be a no-brainer.
However, this is not the dog culture we have.
The dog culture we have does two things that utterly gum up the works when it comes to sound population management principles:
1. Closed registries as dogma.
2. Competitive dog breeding.
The former is what creates the genetically compromised population. The latter is what exacerbates it.
Could you imagine the madness that it would be to breed giant pandas based upon a conformation standard?
But that’s exactly what is happening in the world of dogs, and as I’ve noted before, it’s not just dog shows that are causing this problem. Breeding choices that are based solely on trial performance do the exact same job.
Each generation of dogs that is bred under these conditions loses genes. Some of these genes might be pretty nice to have– like the gene that Dalmatians had for producing urine with normal levels of uric acid. This was actually lost to the entire population of Dalmatians before a pointer was crossed in to reintroduce it.
And it took decades and decades of fighting the closed registry dogma to get these Dalmatians into the breed. Even though they were very, very distantly derived from that pointer that was crossed in, the breed vanguards would not allow in the “mongrels.”
Until it became impossible to say no.
Every single breed in a closed registry system that is being bred with under these principles is at risk for winding up like the Dalmatian. What’s even more frightening is that as these breeds become more and more related through both popular sire problems and “line-breeding,” it becomes impossible to control for genetic load. Dog breeders operate under the delusion that you can just select away from any disease just like you’d select away from poor conformation, which is why they go ape over every genetic test for a disease that comes down the pike.
It’s not that these genetic tests aren’t useful. It’s that they do give dog breeders a crutch to hold onto. You can’t talk about a better way to manage genetic load– i.e., let in new blood and selectively breed for better gene conservation– because everyone is awaiting the next genetic test to come along.
The problem is that the greater dog fancy is a culture that worships genetic plunder. Most of the effects of such pillage are not known while the pillaging is happening. During that time, a breeder might become rewarded with top winning dogs that may or may not have long lives.
But it is the next generations that the problems with gene loss and reduced genetic diversity start to become apparent. By then the breeder or breeders who plundered the genes may not even be around anymore.
But they have stolen from the next generation of dog owners and breeders.
It’s that next generation who will have to pay the vet bills and watch their dogs die agonizing deaths.
And all because we have contrived up endangered species that we call dog breeds and then bred them in ways that make absolutely no sense.
No one wants to talk about this genetic plunder.
And no one wants to talk about the simple fact that this concept of closed registry breed is really a very new concept. A breed is not a species. And although there are breed differences, when we start talking about breeds that are closely related, the differences become somewhat trivial.
And it is at this point the dog world becomes a dogma– a type of religion.
Breed becomes a faith-based assertion, and the dogs suffer because reason is not the operating force behind the management of their populations.
Dogma is.
Dogma is not good for dogs.
Great post. Could not agree more.
Great points all, and since finding your blog and the Borderwars blog, I’ve been pleased to find there are some people in agreement, but this needs to be brought out more to public attention and hammered into their skulls.
More documentaries, more news breaks, more! It takes time but it’s been shown before, that ideas do eventually trickle down into common human populations. If the “deed not breed” slogan can become as big as it is, some slogan for genetic diversity can get there too.
After all, just the term “Diversity” has become big for other reasons.
Kudos–good stuff.
Wow. I had no idea. Thank you for this post and educating a dog lover and biology person about something that should have been so easy for me to see.
Thank you for posting this study – it fits right into the Pop Gen course I am taking.
Good to see Calboli et al sited. It would be good to see their work replicated for all breeds, rather than just 10. As a gundog person, I think it creates a good argument for re-joining the goldie and the flattie. Would give a basis for reducing horrible cancer incidence in flatties and correcting some of the temperament problems that have been appearing in goldies.
Funny, though I agree with opening registries, I still find the CKC (not Canadian) mode of registration distasteful. Not sure why. Maybe it’s just a sense that they’re a money grab.
Flat-coated retrievers need golden and Labrador blood.
These three dogs were all the same breed, which fell under the category “wavy-coated retriever.” Any time you see a description of a smooth retriever in a nineteenth century text, it is with the wavy-coated breed.
Labradors have a lot of traits I like, especially those from British gun dog lines. That’s why I want to reunite with that blood.
p.s. should note that Calboli et al estimate only the effective population sizes within the UK. The international effective population sizes are larger, especially for breeds like Labs and goldies that have had large non-UK populations for many decades. This suggests that the UK is amiss in restricting AI, and somewhat lessens the urgency for some breeds, but does not change the basic picture. Especially because there is a lot of uncertainty about the choice of 100 as a minimum sustainable effective population size. Larger effective population sizes are better.
pps. what is really sad is the number of snobs who would condemn the litter with your cover girl picture and accuse the breeder of being unethical and a BYB, but would say nothing about an AKC golden with heritable defects mated to another AKC golden with heritable defects. The back yard is NOT a bad place to breed dogs!
I too find an effective population size of 100 to be ridiculously small. I’d like to see it at 1000 or more.
Nicely written article. I would love to see the breed clubs open up their registries. However, I think it is a pipe dream. The controlling clubs are very rigid with their ideas. It is a shame.
I think it has to take a paradigm shift.
I wish I had an answer.
Me too!
This post lacks acurate knowledge and experience of dog breeding and makes enormous misrepresentations. I have several points to make:
1. While the gene pool is closed to a singular breed this pool remains international. A quality breeder won’t use the dog that’s closest and most convenient for them, they’ll use the best dog, even if that means importing semen or dogs across the world, which is pretty usual practice amongst good breeders.
2. Genetic diversity is only of benefit if the dogs being paired are clear of health problems. If you mate two random and totally unrelated cross breeds that both have Slipping patellas (or any other inheritable condition) your going still to have that problem despite however genetically disparate the parents of the puppies may be.
3. Closing the gene pool also means that you close the genetic problem. If You know that Breed A suffers from Disease B you know to test it for this problem and breed accordingly. If you start cross breeding dogs you are not going to eliminate this problem, you are just going to increase the number of health tests required. If you take a cross bred dog of random parentage and decide to breed from it how are you going to know what problems to test for?
4. Despite the constant cry’s of Dog Showing causing these problems, it is quite the opposite. For a dog to be a successful show dogs he requires not only the correct conformation, but also to be in the peak of health and of outgoing temperament and complete soundness. A dog will not win (and is banned from showing under the constitution of Kennel Club) if he shows any sign of health or temperament issues. This constitution also states that the breeder must breed to the highest standard of ethics and morals.
The problem discussed in this piece are not caused by pedigreed dogs, but by Backyard Breeders and Puppy Farms which breed purely for profit. The benefit from genetic diversity only occurs when the general population is of healthy individuals free from genetic problems, not when it is their purely for the sake of creating genetic diversity!
And you’re full of shit.
And you’re a pug breeder too, so you’re not just full of shit. You’re delusional too!
If you’re breeding pugs for the show ring. To the pug dog standard, you are lower than dog fighting scum, because you cause far more suffering than they do!
So ignorant of population genetics that you are unqualified to comment here.
You are that stupid.
Really.
I can’t believe it!
http://www.seppalakennels.com/articles/population-genetics-in-practice.htm
Every single word of your comment is wrong.
EVERY SINGLE ONE.
My gawd.
Debunked: http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/purebred-vs-mixed-uc-davis.html
You might actually want to read a study before you start posting it as gospel.
If you people keep posting the press release of that study, then you all need to be slapped.
[…] a culture that worships genetic plunder, […]